Is it just me, or is the silly season of electoral politics — the presidential election cycle — arriving earlier and earlier in each successive four-year stretch?

Last time around, it was nearly Memorial Day of the year preceding the election before pundits started speculating about when the obvious odd man out would shut his nomination campaign down (they also thought that odd man out was John McCain … don’t bet the farm on the talking heads’ predictions!).

This time, pretenders’ heads were already rolling before the end of April. Some potential Republican aspirants have wisely decided to spend more time with their families instead of on the campaign trail. Others have already managed to get their feet stuck in, or even sink neck-deep into, the fever swamp of “birtherism.”

It’s all theater. If only it were good theater. With 18 months to go, we’re barely halfway into the first act of a really bad play — “Springtime For Hitler” meets “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” directed by Claudio Fragasso from a script by James Joyce.

Comes now the comic relief: Two declared or semi-declared Republican candidates held out by supporters and opponents alike as “libertarians.”

One of them, congressman Ron Paul, is a career pork-barrel politician with a platform of equal liberty for all who aren’t queer, swarthy or from the wrong side of one of those imaginary lines his fellow politicians drew on the ground.

The other, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, believes in “humanitarian war” and wants to keep a federal hand in social welfare programs by moving from direct funding to “bloc grants.”

But even supposing that either of these two “libertarians” was the genuine article, the real elephant in the room (pun intended) is the essential nature of the state itself.

“The Democrats,” wrote PJ O’Rourke in 1991’s Parliament of Whores, “are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

Over the next 18 months, libertarians will no doubt argue vociferously amongst themselves about Paul and Johnson. The most often heard line from their supporters will be that one or the other at least represents “a move in the right direction.” The strongest defense offered for their non-libertarian positions will be that “ideological purity” just isn’t feasible in the context of an election campaign.

Both of those arguments miss the point entirely.

A “move in the right direction” is impossible in a car that doesn’t run — and political government is just that kind of car.

No amount of kicking the tires, raising the hood and tinkering with the engine, or beating on the dashboard and yelling will make the engine turn over or get it into gear and moving up the road toward freedom.

No matter how hard you push it, it will always weigh more than you and if it budges at all its momentum will carry it in only one direction: Downhill.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson can’t drive you to freedom, even if they want to and even if you can carry them to the car on your shoulders and joyously place them behind the wheel. Their car’s a lemon. It’s a wreck. It belongs on blocks in the back yard, with weeds growing through the floorboard and bees nesting in the engine compartment.

The only way to get to freedom is to walk — away from the wreck, away from the idea that you can get somewhere in a vehicle that’s going nowhere. You can start now or you can sit in the car with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson flashing the lights, honking the horn, swilling MD 20/20 and listening to that old Abba cassette until the battery runs down. Your call.

My approach to individual "side projects" like X2012 is to throw them out there, put a little effort into promoting them, then watch to see if people respond. If they do, I put more effort in. If they don't, I let the thing sit there for awhile and eventually let it go — shut it down or fold it into some other project.

X2012 didn't seem to catch fire in that initial round of promotion, so I stopped actively working on it. If others take it up and decide to make it go, I'll turn my attention back to it. If, as seems more likely, that doesn't happen, I'll probably forward the URL to some other "don't vote" project that it might add a little mass to.

Completely agree with FoxHollowMan. I am an anarchist because of hearing about Ron Paul and I know there are thousands just like me. In the long run it is clear that government can't bring anything but statism. But if Paul can at worst spread the freedom philosophy across the entire nation (if not world) through the media and make tens of thousands more anarchists, or at best stop the daily slaughtering of muslims, end the drug war etc, then I don't see any reason why I should not support him. How about the writers at C4SS concentrate on showing all the people that will find their way to your site indirectly because of Paul why they should be anarchists instead of being so damn self righteous and shooting yourselves in the foot.

If you found your way here via the demagoguery of a guy who ran in 2008 as a "true conservative," on money raised from lists built with racist newsletter rants, on advertisements about keeping the dusky-hued furriners out, and on a platform that includes nullifying the US Constitution with legislation to protect the "right" of states to persecute homosexuals, well, I guess stranger routes are possible. But I also figure anyone smart enough to find their way to anarchism via such a route has probably already learned far more and better than I could possibly hope to show them here.

Part of our mission here at C4SS is persuading people that voting is not the route to freedom. And part of that mission is persuading them that yes, "even if the vote is for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson," that remains true.

I attended a few Ron Paul meetings during the 2008 campaign, and his supporters are definitely a mixed bag. On one hand, there were well meaning young people who never cared about politics before hearing about Ron Paul. Their views on a lot of major issues were not well formed, but many of them seemed to have pretty strong libertarian sensibilities.

On the other hand, there were racist and homophobic John Bircher types. These were the people who seemed to be most upset about the federal goverment interfering with their State's "right" to systemically persecute minorities and homosexuals.

There is certainly no use in reaching out to people in the second group, but I think that we can make a lot of progress by reaching out to people in the first group. We just need to convince them that politics is not the answer. That is why articles like this important.

Thanks you for writing this article, Thomas. I will be forwarding it to my Ron Paul supporting friends.

"aul's and Johnson's value is not their potential to get elected; it is in their use of the platform of electoral politics to spread the message of freedom."

I think what's being addressed here is their potential to get elected and those people who support that effort, I didn't see anywhere where Mr. Knapp dismissed the use of electoral politics for a means of education.

What the actual fuck? I get – and agree with – not respecting politicians in principle when the goal is a stateless voluntary society. I completely agree with your assessment of Johnson – his stance on "humanitarian war" and welfare is wrong, period.

But to not see Paul as someone with the tools and platform to help usher in a greater understanding, acceptance, and desire for true freedom just makes you a joke. As if Carson's crush on Marx didn't already make you all so.

I largely agree with your assessment, Thomas. I will not be voting for or in any way support Paul or Johnson.

However, I do think that there is one possible benefit of a Paul presidency. A lot of the Paul supporters who I know are people who claim to have never been involved in politics before hearing about Paul. Before Paul came along, they were pretty much convinced that voting and political activism were useless. They weren't anarchists, of course, but they at least had a healthy cynicism about the efficacy of politics.

If Paul did somehow become president, I am sure that he would totally fail at reducing the size and power of the government in any meaningful way. At the end of Paul's presidency, the government would be larger, more powerful, and more oppressive.

And all of the formerly cynical people who claimed that Paul had "cured their apathy" will be left wondering what happened. They will want to know why their savior wasn't able to hold Leviathan at bay.

This will give us a wonderful opportunity to educate Paul's disillusioned followers about the only real solution to the problem of statism: anarchism.

If you're referring to my article, I don't think I was arguing about who is more doctrinaire. As a matter of fact, I specifically noted that the ideological back-and-forth is beside the point.

Even if Ron Paul and Gary Johnson got circle-As tattooed on their foreheads, affixed black flags to their campaign buses, and ended every speech with "also, I think that the state must be destroyed," and one of them was elected to the White House, I don't believe that anything they would or could do in four or eight years there would move us significantly closer to a stateless society.

Electing presidents is not how we get there.

I agree that an "I know I can't win, but I can propagandize" campaign can be of value, but if it's that kind of campaign then who is more doctrinaire does matter. Why bother running a propaganda campaign if you're going to water down your propaganda to pander to statist constituencies?

I really do not understand why some folks are so upset about your article. Is it because you didn't bow down and worship He Who Is Ron Paul? Or is it because you recommended something outside of the mainstream?

I liked this article and agree with this stance. I don't think electoral politics is a proper classroom.

PS: I do not follow the Cult of Ron Paul. He has screwed up social "values" that remind me of something from the 700 club. I can be anti-State and not support Ron Paul. So all you disciples out there, get over yourself.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that the article comes off in places as smug, condescending, or more-libertarian than thou. I don't entirely agree with that assessment, but I can certainly see how one could think that.

PS: There is no need to refer to those who disagree with you as a cult.

If it comes off as smug and condescending, that's my fault and I'll work on improving my communications skills.

On the "more libertarian than thou," thing, though, keep in mind that these articles are not aimed at a libertarian audience. They're written for publication as op-eds in mainstream newspapers. So while a libertarian audience might very well read it as "more libertarian than thou," since we're all theoretically on the same ideological page but possibly in different paragraphs, it's intended audience will likely take away a different message.

If you cannot understand that any change that brings more liberty to more people will bring the thirst for more then its already hopeless for your entire lot. The collectivists have not achieved the destruction of the love for liberty all at once or through radical action but by slowly changing the climate in which people were raised and operated. The return to self-rule must follow the same pattern and from where we are going back to a Constitutional government would mean going 80 miles on a 100 mile road.

Continue to struggle for perfection while refusing to move towards the good for you shall struggle alone.

Check your premises. It does not follow from the fact that a particular means works well for the achievement of Goal A, that that same means will work equally well for the achievement of Goal Opposite-of-A.

I don't get what your beef with Ron Paul's stance on gays is about. He has stated several times he'd rather see government get out of the business of marriage altogether, a move I as a gay person endorse. Sure he may be socially conservative, but the point is he doesn't believe in force against those he doesn't like.

I think the fear that MOST of us are dealing with right now is the looming collapse of the dollar. Eventually the government is going to have to shrink, one way or another. In what way will be up to us. I personally enjoy not living in a third world country, and if it means playing electoral games in the offchance that it may save our currency, I'm all for it. I could care less about the state, it's our money I'm worried about.

Yes, Ron Paul has "stated several times he'd rather see government get out of the business of marriage altogether."

He usually states that when he's in a room full of libertarians who have their checkbooks with them.

When he sends fundraising letters to conservative lists, on the other hand — I've received them myself — he brags that he's the guy who proposes to exempt the states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause in a manner that violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, so that the states can keep same-sex couples from getting married.

Of course, you're focusing on one word out of about 650 here.

My point in the article is not that Ron Paul is an asshole, it's that voting for him isn't going to get you so much as a millimeter closer to freedom.

Yeah, really. If that was my proposition, that's the proposition I would have argued.

The proposition I did argue is that even if you think Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, supporting his presidential campaign isn't going to get move things in the direction of freedom.

I (accurately) described Paul. If you think that the characteristics and positions I (accurately) attribute to him make him an asshole, that's something you should probably take up with him, not me.

I suppose I could just not talk or write about Ron Paul, but some people aren't even happy with that. It's hard to discuss the price of borscht in Belgrade without someone popping up and asking "what about Ron Paul? If we elected him president and eliminated the Fed there'd be enough borscht for everyone!"

There's a news cycle. Ron Paul is part of that news cycle, so I'm going to write about Ron Paul. And I'm not going to do so from my knees, genuflecting and invoking the memory of his virgin mother. If that hurts, wear a cup.

Don't try to act as if you didn't intend to describe Paul negatively in that sentence. Two of those points (the idea that Paul is not in favor of equal liberty for those who are either queer or swarthy) are very much debatable (I'm not even entirely certain whether or not I disagree with you), and which side of the debate you are on is obvious. That's fine in and of itself, but you're trying (or seem to be trying) to deny that either of those could be debated.

Anything can be debated. If you like, we can debate which direction the sun rises in each morning.

Certainly the matter of whether or not Ron Paul should be viewed negatively is more debatable than that, and the "right" opinion much more subjective.

I accurately described some of Paul's characteristics that yes, I do in fact take a negative view of. Whether or not you take a negative view of those same characteristics, or of Paul due to those characteristics, is entirely up to you.

The fact remains that the article was not a general critique of Paul (or of Johnson), but of the idea that supporting the presidential candidacy of Paul (or Johnson) can achieve anything worthwhile — another very subjective matter of opinion if for no other reason than that what I consider worthwhile may not be the same as what you consider worthwhile.

I have any number of reasons not to support Paul's presidential candidacy. My overall negative view of him as a specific politician is way down the list in general and barely even on the list with respect to this article. But as is usually the case with cults of personality, it seems to have become the central point of criticism of the article.

I treat politics like warfare. Are you shooting with me or are you shooting at me? Even on intellectual property, Ron Paul raises skepticism on the government's involvement. If power gets broken down to state power, fine then, we'll just keep decentralizing.

Not even a milimeter? Really? The people in the heartland he has converted from neocons to antiwar?? His work against imperialism has been second to none in America for anyone in decades.

I dont vote, and i dont think electoral politics, but to pretend that the social movement that is the Ron Paul phenomenon hasn't moved millions of peoples hearts much closer to the philsophy of freedom is willfully ignorant.

is it the ultimate solution? will it get us the whole way? no, absolutely not. Is it the biggest part of the journey we have made yet? I dont see how you can argue otherwise… even c4ss would be unlikely to exist in its current form without that movement!

there is a war of position and a war of movement, they are not the same, but are also indivisible…

Mr. Knapp — if you were proposing that voting is not only worthless, but downright counterproductive, vis-a-vis BHO or Romney/Huckabee/Palin, etc., there would be no brickbats from libertarians. However, going after RP tests the capacity of the reader to fully discard his attachment to the allure of THE LEADER. To me, there are no half-leaders or half-followers. Either you accept hierarchical authority or you don't. We need (IMO) to take the responsibility to lead ourselves and leave the politicians (of all stripes) behind. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that the very essence of Anarchism?

Regardless of the masterdebaters and their flogathons…if Ron Paul’s books and works turn our neighbors from Obamatrons into Paultards…then his assistance, added to our advocacy, is well worth tolerating BOTH the trons and tards for a few more hours. One bone though…with reference to the comment regarding some supposed 14th Amendment FEDERAL gun-barrels which force lesser regions with lesser defenses to behave…or not behave…some certain way the wind is blowing that day…wtf Knappster?

The Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to recognize each others' acts and deeds, and reciprocity of recognition of marriage licenses has always been part of that. The Full Faith and Credit Clause did appear to give Congress nearly unlimited power to prescribe its application …

… but then the Constitution was amended to prohibit the states from denying the equal protection of the law. That amendment, since it comes after and therefore amends the Full Faith and Credit clause, constrains Congress. They cannot constitutionally use their prescriptive powers vis a vis the Full Faith and Credit clause to nullify the Constitution.

But the car is in the way. This article highlights the practical problem of moving it, without bringing out the dilemma that moving it out of the way is just precisely what must be done. And there is the moral quandary that doing anything along those lines is that of how to “touch pitch and remain undefiled”, i.e. of ourselves becoming at best carriers of the very disease to be cured.

Haha. Oh noez they're not perfect, the world is gunna' end. The truth is– we need more people like Ron Paul & Gary Johnson. Even if they are libertarian-lites that can sometimes blend in with Neo-Cons. The goal, for me, is to make Libertarianism a mainstream and respectable ideology. Once this is accomplished we can work towards REAL goals.

Jeez – Paul votes against pork 100% of the time, but accepts it for his own district, and why not? Its his constituents' money. He's personally socially conservative but always says he wants government out of people's private lives, and always votes that way. There is nothing phoney about him.